tablishment of international relations on a higher plane were rudely disturbed in 1905 by the action of the United States Senate in refusing to ratify treaties of arbitration arranged with Great Britain, France and Germany, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Portugal and Mexico. These treaties provided that in each case, before appealing to the permanent court at The Hague, the nations involved in the dispute should make an agreement defining the scope of the matter to be submitted for arbitration. The Senate objected to the use of the word "agreement" which would empower the executive to make such arrangements without referring them to the Senate - a 66 'treaty," however, would require the consent of the latter. Jealous of its prerogatives, the Senate amended the wording by substituting the word "treaty" for

agreement," despite the fact that there were any number of precedents for such delegation of powers to the President. President Roosevelt was disgusted by the action of the Senate, and refused to press the ratification of the treaties by the contracting powers, and in consequence the majority of them were not ratified until 1908-9.

The tendency of the President to take the initiative in foreign affairs was the cause of another difference with the Senate in January, 1905, regarding the Santo Domingo affair. In 1904 the United States had recog

nized the régime of General Morales as the de facto government of Santo Domingo, but the latter soon became so entangled with his foreign creditors that he appealed to President Roosevelt for aid in establishing his credit and restoring order. The treaty drawn up was an endeavor to do this thing, the United States agreeing to take control of the revenues of Santo Domingo, until the creditors were satisfied. This agreement was made by the United States minister to Santo Domingo, and was denounced by the Senate as an attempt to make treaties without gaining its sanction. Not only was the act itself repudiated, but the wording of the preamble of the President's message was conceived to indicate an extension of the Monroe Doctrine to include the redress of the real or fancied wrongs of Latin-American peoples. The Democratic Senators were unalterably opposed to the treaty, and in conjunction with the Republican opponents of the President were able to prevent its ratification until February 28, 1905, when it was ratified with amendments mainly framed to protect the United States from any liability in the perform ance of its unusual task.

In spite of clashes between the executive and legislative branches of the government, and the failure of many of the President's proposals, the Fifty-ninth Congress was nevertheless remarkable for the progressive laws which were passed. The

most notable acts of the first session were: the amended Interstate Commerce Law; the Pure Food Law; reform of naturalization laws; removal of the international revenue tax on denatured alcohol; increase of the navy; forfeiture of railway land grants, where roads had failed to be constructed; liability of common carriers for injury or death of employees due to defective appliances or negligence; preservation of the Niagara Falls; travelling expenses ($25,000) per annum for the President; statehood for Oklahoma; statehood for Arizona and New Mexico as separate States after popular vote; reorganization of the consular service; coinage for the Philippine Islands; ex-territorial courts in China; and the selection of a lock type for the Panama Canal. Equally important was the legislation of the second session, the most significant acts being: the prohibition of campaign contributions by corporations; the investigation of woman and child labor: the general service pension law granting pensions to all veterans over 62 years of age who had served in the military or naval forces of the United States whether wounded or not; an act limiting labor law on railways to not more than 16 continuous hours; increase of the salaries of the VicePresident, Cabinet Cabinet members and

*

257

Speaker of the House from $8,000 to $12,000, and Senators and Representatives from $5,000 to $7,500.

Much of this legislation was recommended by the President in his annual message. Many things he asked for were voted down or buried in the committees, others were emasculated almost beyond recognition, but on the whole the policies of the President received a greater measure of approval than might have been anticipated, considering the friction that developed from time to time between Mr. Roosevelt and Congress, and the fear of executive usurpation which was continually disturbing the latter. The work of this Congress received the following testimonial from President Roosevelt :

"I would not be afraid to compare its record with that of any of the previous Congresses in our history, not alone for the wisdom, but for the disinterested highmindedness which has controlled its action. It is noteworthy that not a single measure which the closest scrutiny could warrant us in calling of doubtful propriety has been enacted, and on the other hand, no influence of any kind has prevailed to prevent the enactment of laws most vitally necessary to the nation at this time."

Just how much of this legislation would have been enacted had the President not been solidly supported by the people, it is difficult to say, yet that it would have been epochmaking there can be no doubt. The President had grown steadily in popular respect, and when it was seen that his promises were followed as far as it was in his power by fulfil

President Roosevelt declaring age a conclusive evidence of disability.

had found some one to lead them

out of the wilderness. It was clear that unless they forced economic legislation of a character almost revolutionary, the influences that controlled the industrial world and had been making tremendous advances towards the control of the political, would become so entrenched that nothing save a revolution could dislodge them. Neither capital, nor labor, nor, indeed, the great mass of the people, understood as clearly as President Roosevelt the real issue of the struggle that was on. Nowhere has this been more definitely stated that in some brief remarks made by him during the proceedings of the conference of governors at Washington, May 15, 1908:

"I want to say one word about what has been called the twilight land' between the powers of the Federal Government and the State Governments. My primary aim, in the legislation that I have advocated for the great corporations, has been to provide some effective popular sovereign for each corporation. *I am trying to find out where one or the other can act, so that there shall be always some sovereign power that, on behalf of the People, can hold every corporation, every individual, to an accountability, so that its or his acts shall be beneficial to the People as a whole."

He saw that the ambiguity and compromise in the Constitution of the United States in delimiting the sphere of the Federal government and that of the States had been taken advantage of by the corporate interests in preventing legislative control of any sort. Some States, notably, New Jersey, have permitted the incorporation of industrial bodies with scarcely any conditions

attached, and when they have committed abuses and when an endeavor to discipline them has been made, they have sought the protection of the courts and in many cases escaped just punishment by questioning the right of the central government, under the Constitution, to act. With consummate skill, the dual nature of that document has been abused in the defense of institutions menacing to the principle of individual freedom. On the other hand, in a number of States the opposite extreme has been approached in the enactment of legislation so stringent that it has effectually prevented the construction of railways, and investment of capital, thereby preventing industrial development of the territory concerned. The result of these conditions was the formulation of the Interstate Commerce Law of 1897. which under the clause of the Constitution premitting the regulation of interstate commerce, aimed to restrict abuses by prohibiting secret rates and rebates, unreasonable rates, and local preferential rates. It was hoped that this law would be efficient, but its efficiency was dependent upon the power of the commission established under its provisions to determine what constituted unreasonable rates, and this was denied by a decision of the Supreme Court soon after the law went into effect. The commission thus became powerless, and the purpose of the law was largely nullified, hence a

Yet the problem was not solved by this legislation, for it failed to reach the owners of private freight lines of the great fruit and packing firms, the owners of pipe lines, express and sleeping car companies, etc. The former interstate legislation had, in fact, proved a protection to these corporations, for in another guise they were doing what was now denied the railways themselves. It was not long before the abuses resulting from the strategical position they had gained became so onerous, especially upon certain sections of the country, that there was unanimity of public opinion for an extension of the law to cover these corporations also. The result was the Hepburn Law, passed during the last hours of the Fiftyninth Congress (June 29, (June 29, 1906). This act was under bitter discussion during the whole of the second session, and in view of the powerful forces arrayed against it, came forth a far more comprehensive and stringent enactment than might have been expected.

It gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to

66

259

prescribe rates, subject to court review; broadened the term common carrier" so as to bring under the jurisdiction of the law all railways, private lines, express and sleeping car companies, and pipe lines. If forbade issuance of passes to any save employees, forbade the ownership or control of coal, iron, or other companies shipping commodities, required schedules of rates to be deposited with commission, demanded a uniform system of accounting, and made more severe the penalties for rebating.* The commission itself was enlarged, in addition, to seven members. Under the provisions of this law, action was brought against the Standard Oil Company of Indiana for accepting rebates on oil shipped over the Chicago and Alton between Whiting, Ind., and East Saint Louis. This case was tried by Judge K. M. Landis, of the United States District Court at Chicago, August 3, 1907, who fined the defendant the maximum fine of $29,240,000. This was set aside July 22, 1908, by the United States Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the decision was confiscatory.

Another important case under this act was the investigation of the Harriman lines, in order to determine the methods by which he had gained control of one-seventh of the railways of the country. Mr. Harriman absolutely refused to testify on vital points, and his position was upheld

* In 1908, 46 indictments were made for rebating, 3 of which resulted in convictions and fines.

in a decision of the Supreme Court, December, 1908, which interpreted that the penalizing clause referred solely to failure to testify in cases involving a breach of the law.

In another case, decided September 10, 1908, the so-called "Commodities clause " was declared unconstitutional by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, at Philadelphia. This removed the restriction denying railways the right to mine and sell coal and iron, and other products. The courts have thus done everything possible to eliminate the extreme provisions of the law, and have cast suspicions upon the efficiency of the legislation as a whole, yet it is very evident that any activity leading toward further curtailment of the power of the commission would be strenuously opposed by the people, and would result, in the long run, in legislation still more severe. There are only two apparent solutions to the corporation problem: government control or government ownership, and if the former be impossible, the coming of the latter will be only a question of time.

Second in importance perhaps first, if its influence upon the welfare of the people be considered, was the National Food and Drugs (Pure Food) Act, passed June 30, 1906. This was a compromise, and far less stringent than food legislation that has been on the statute books of foreign nations for years, yet it was a tremendous forward stride in the direction

of protecting the people from the innumerable frauds that for years had been perpetrated by individuals and corporations whose morality has lagged far behind their desire for wealth. It had long been known that food, drugs, and other articles of consumption had been supplied to the public in adulterated form for years, but in absence of legislation there was no apparent method of stopping the practice. The matter was brought to an issue by the army beef scandal, and the evidence produced at the hearings of the commission of inquiry was of such a nature that a strong demand arose for action on the part of Congress. Session after session bills were presented, but the forces arrayed against them were too strong, and they were quietly shelved. But the issue could not be evaded longer, and the result was the passage of the law of 1906. This legislation was hastened by the publication of a book named The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which revealed a horrible condition of affairs in the stock-yards of Chicago. An investigation proved the relative truth of his accusations, and the result was the indictment of high officials of the beef companies. Public opinion became so strongly in favor of protective legislation, that the long-hoped for acts were finally passed. The Food Bill is primarily a publicity law, and provides a penalty only for using poisonous or otherwise injurious substances in adul